It's doesn't matter that Fakaosilea and the Sapinish players complied by residence or grandparents. All three were captured players to other countries.

If you can't really see anything wrong with the fact the union who fielded five players as close to qualify for them as I am is escaping with no actual penalty at all while the one that did less mistakes, Romania, loses the big prize and is sent to a relegation playoff I'll just assume you prefer trolling than having a reasonable discussion.

I guess anybody who doesn't agree with you is a troll. See you in 5 years......

What is a real concern to me is the way that a singular error is able to accumulate such large penalties. What would have happened if Romanian officials had twigged to what was published on the internet about Faka playing sevens much earlier? And just when did the Russians learn about this error, and who tipped them off? The bizarre thing is that the Tongans had been experts themselves in capturing players through sevens loopholes (Tuitavake, Vuna). So, did Romania unfortunately correspond with the only person in Tongan administration who did not know that sevens captured Faka for Tonga? The way the penalties have been ruled on by WRR seems to set a dangerous precedent if someone sits on information from an honest mistake, and then brings it up when it counts most. Surely there has to be some form of time limitation placed on a challenge being made, or we will inevitably see a mess arise sometime in the future.

How many countries will now be double-checking every last detail just in case they slipped up somewhere in the time since the start of the 2015 World Cup? And what happens if a new issue is brought to light prior to the repechage, or prior to RWC starting, and affecting a country that has qualified? What if dark-haired Anthony Pulu from Niue gets chosen as blond Toni Pulu from Tonga for RWC, and plays? And what if an ineligible player is found to have played at RWC 2015? Will the matches that counted for automatic qualification for RWC 2019 be revisited and points overturned?

Those suggesting a 'capture database' is the best answer are a bit naive, as it relies on 100% accuracy in so many things. There are so many exemption decisions and loopholes, and players changing names even, that reliance on that might be disastrous, if it should be compiled retrospectively. Any error in the database could be catastrophic, if relied upon. And what about players playing their last match prior to their 18th birthday? And what about incomplete records in English from Tahiti or Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe or China or???

The decision seems well reasoned legally. But, it does provide too much incentive for future challenges to be unearthed at an inopportune time.

What happens if it's found out during or after the World Cup that someone from one of the T1 nations isn't eligible? What happens if Australia wins the tournament with someone ineligible who played each game?

ARHS wrote:How many countries will now be double-checking every last detail just in case they slipped up somewhere in the time since the start of the 2015 World Cup?

That's a good thing, right? Everybody should stick to the same rules, right?

ARHS wrote:And what happens if a new issue is brought to light prior to the repechage, or prior to RWC starting, and affecting a country that has qualified? What if dark-haired Anthony Pulu from Niue gets chosen as blond Toni Pulu from Tonga for RWC, and plays? And what if an ineligible player is found to have played at RWC 2015? Will the matches that counted for automatic qualification for RWC 2019 be revisited and points overturned?

That's actually a good question. But as the RWC is not a qualification per se, another handling could be applied. About Toni Pulu, I bet he has a passport with his real and complete name. Use this.

ARHS wrote:Those suggesting a 'capture database' is the best answer are a bit naive, as it relies on 100% accuracy in so many things. There are so many exemption decisions and loopholes, and players changing names even, that reliance on that might be disastrous, if it should be compiled retrospectively. Any error in the database could be catastrophic, if relied upon. And what about players playing their last match prior to their 18th birthday? And what about incomplete records in English from Tahiti or Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe or China or???

There is one birth certificate, just one writing in a passport. If an English speaking country can't get the names written in english right, they have other issues.Only problem could be players born outside of the latin scripture countries, but they also have this modern thing called passports. Works pretty well

ARHS wrote:The decision seems well reasoned legally. But, it does provide too much incentive for future challenges to be unearthed at an inopportune time.

Romania didn't ask if he has played 7s for Tonga. Bad mistake. But we need to make sure, that you can't play or be dumb ("ups, we didn't know that"), when you can google it easily. Is the penalty tough? Absolutely, but it also makes sure, that nobody will ever again forget about the 7s.

The real change is needed in my eyesw, with how you handle the next representative team, because that's simply due to being unbelievable complicated. A designated U20 team captures you, but only if you play against another U20 team that captures you.. Seriously wtf!

About Russia, I actually think, that this also came up in this very forum extremely early. It might have even originated here.I would say that we should probably change to a passport holder system exactly like soccer does it. The Home Nations can use the same approach the soccer Home nations, or whatever they want as long as all of their players are British citizens.If that's not the way to go, then bloody go by place of birth (grandparents are okay for me) and as a second way, if this doesn't makes you eligible, that you are a passport holder.

No matter what we need to simplify things and not introduce kafkaesque things like "one U20 captures you" or the you get one extra point if you score from within your 22. Keep it simple in every way.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

thatrugbyguy wrote:What happens if it's found out during or after the World Cup that someone from one of the T1 nations isn't eligible? What happens if Australia wins the tournament with someone ineligible who played each game?

They will lose it. End of story. What happens if you break another rule like taking a medication which is on the doping list? You are diqualified. How can this even be a question?

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

RugbyLiebe wrote:Romania didn't ask if he has played 7s for Tonga. Bad mistake. But we need to make sure, that you can't play or be dumb ("ups, we didn't know that"), when you can google it easily. Is the penalty tough? Absolutely, but it also makes sure, that nobody will ever again forget about the 7s.

FRR didn't asked specifically for Sevens but asked about National teams (Tonga) and Next senior representative teams. The mail was sent to Vunipola which was the head of TRU, he wasn't a mere clerk from the respective Union. Vunipola's contact details were given by WR for this specific purpose at FRR request. The mail also contained the specific scope, capture of the player by Oaks and if he's blocked somehow by Tonga.

There's no doubt about the scope of the correspondence, not for a moment. It isn't anywhere written you have to ask about 7s specifically and anyway FRR asked about Tonga National Teams. That was only a glitch that the committee used to reason. If you'd receive a mail like that you wouldn't have any doubt about what's the info requested. It is a matter of wording, it is not the most exact but the scope is clear and TRU's answer as well.

As about the page of his club, I still wonder why it appeared only after the first decision despite many (including me) frantically looking on google for info about Sione.

thatrugbyguy wrote:What happens if it's found out during or after the World Cup that someone from one of the T1 nations isn't eligible? What happens if Australia wins the tournament with someone ineligible who played each game?

They will lose it. End of story. What happens if you break another rule like taking a medication which is on the doping list? You are diqualified. How can this even be a question?

This enlights what is to me an incoherence: why if you field a player illicitly naturalized you have the match lost while if you have a doped player you conserve the result and just the player is disqualified? In both the cases you had a in illicit help: in the second case maybe the team was not aware of the player's doping but it should count anyway the collective responsibility so the fault should be considered of the whole team. I think this disparity of severity between illegal naturalization and doping is unjust, but, ok, I think to have already said it several times

thatrugbyguy wrote:What happens if it's found out during or after the World Cup that someone from one of the T1 nations isn't eligible? What happens if Australia wins the tournament with someone ineligible who played each game?

They will lose it. End of story. What happens if you break another rule like taking a medication which is on the doping list? You are diqualified. How can this even be a question?

This enlights what is to me an incoherence: why if you field a player illicitly naturalized you have the match lost while if you have a doped player you conserve the result and just the player is disqualified? In both the cases you had a in illicit help: in the second case maybe the team was not aware of the player's doping but it should count anyway the collective responsibility so the fault should be considered of the whole team. I think this disparity of severity between illegal naturalization and doping is unjust, but, ok, I think to have already said it several times

I don't think is any disparity, especially for the case of one player.

Players can appeal to doping without the knowledge of colleagues or the staff...but if there are more players than yes, a disqualification/deduction of points can be sought.

Hmm IIRC cases in doping in team sports are handled differently: the player is suspended and the result is not changed. In my opinion it is World Rugby's responsibility to check eligibility. And if they don't get their records straight the played results must stand. I don't want Rugby to become the next Tour de France.

edit: Canalina's point is not valid. The eligibility of a player lies within the federation's responsibility, whereas doping by a certain player is not. If the federation actually approved of the doping practices, that's another point.

For the f...n sake... FRR make the steps ordered by the WR: they got a CLEAR WRITTEN paper form where Faka says he didn't play for Tonga,NSRT and 7EVENS and ask TONGA CLEARLY if he is eligible for Romania. The rest is just pathetic...

About doping, if it is a mass doping the team will be sanctioned. Baia Mare was relegated few years ago after they take some amino acids who actually where some testosterone enhancers .....

thatrugbyguy wrote:What happens if it's found out during or after the World Cup that someone from one of the T1 nations isn't eligible? What happens if Australia wins the tournament with someone ineligible who played each game?

They will lose it. End of story. What happens if you break another rule like taking a medication which is on the doping list? You are diqualified. How can this even be a question?

Okay, I can understand your points (especially your frustration about this) and I think we should move forward now.What would be the best thing to do in the future from now on, if something like this comes up again?

I mean on the one hand Unions should be held responsible for what they do and shouldn't be able to blame somebody else. Because if not, this could very easily be exploited. Lets say you got the Union Corrupt Islands and for 10k they state whatever you like. And therefore you can let every player you like from Corrupt Island (which happens to be a really great rugby country) play for you (or wrongly state, that a player is fine, and then he isn't).

So what we need isa) to make sure that Corrupt Island would be held accountable for wrong statements.b) then Union A would be still held accountable for everything apart from what Union Corrupt Island stated.

(I am not implying that there was any corruption involved now, there clearly wasn't. But at one stage in Rugby we will come to this point, where we need rules for that).

Last edited by RugbyLiebe on Fri, 08 Jun 2018, 09:51, edited 1 time in total.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

As I wrote, I think it should count the "collective responsibility" principle: rugby is a team sport, maybe the team sport by antonomasia, if my fellow players commits an illicit act this ideally means that I too have committed that illicit act. But I understand that this is debatable.

What is not debatable, to me, is the simple fact that fielding a doped player I have an unfair help (he is more strong, or with more oxygenation, or more resistant to the pain...) so I can't be awarded with a win in a match where I have an illicit advantage. If we think that the collective responsibility doesn't count and that, in a case of player found doped, the team wasn't aware of the doping, we could avoid to punish the team with points loss or other penalizations, but the match itself has to be considered lost. Because, as I wrote, it was won with an illicit help. I just can't see room for dispute about this point.

I suppose that also the last post by Bogdan confirms somehow my point of view: if Romania demonstrated that they made all the needed passes and that the mistake was by tongan federation and the player, and if despite this World Rugby penalized them, it must mean that World Rugby thought: "ok, you had not real fault but anyway you won those matches with a player not entitled to play, so you can't conserve those wins"

rey200 wrote:Canalina's point is not valid. The eligibility of a player lies within the federation's responsibility, whereas doping by a certain player is not. If the federation actually approved of the doping practices, that's another point.

That's exactly why I used the doping example. But I see that can have some flaws. I had more single disciplines in mind, while a Union is responsible for all their players.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

thatrugbyguy wrote:What happens if it's found out during or after the World Cup that someone from one of the T1 nations isn't eligible? What happens if Australia wins the tournament with someone ineligible who played each game?

They will lose it. End of story. What happens if you break another rule like taking a medication which is on the doping list? You are diqualified. How can this even be a question?

This enlights what is to me an incoherence: why if you field a player illicitly naturalized you have the match lost while if you have a doped player you conserve the result and just the player is disqualified? In both the cases you had a in illicit help: in the second case maybe the team was not aware of the player's doping but it should count anyway the collective responsibility so the fault should be considered of the whole team. I think this disparity of severity between illegal naturalization and doping is unjust, but, ok, I think to have already said it several times

As you say, the team is responsible for who it picks. If a players was not eligible the fault is not with the player but with the team. In (most) doping cases this is reversed. The team did not know he was cheating, so it would be unfair to punish the team for the individuals cheating.

If they found teams doping on mass or systematically I think you would find points deducted, but of course we won't know until they catch someone (and be willing to publicly admit a team is doping )

"Regulation 8 is a strict liability offence and shall be construed inaccordance with the principles of strict liability under English law. It is not,therefore, necessary that fault or intent on the part of a Union be shown inorder for a breach of Regulation 8 to be established. Nor is lack of fault orintent on the part of a Union a defence to a breach of Regulation 8. Forthe avoidance of any doubt (and without limiting a Union’s otherobligations and responsibilities for the conduct, acts or omissions of itsmembers and Persons under its jurisdiction pursuant to any otherRegulation) Unions are responsible and accountable for the conduct oftheir Players and all Persons under its jurisdiction in relation tocompliance with the provisions of Regulation 8 and any breach ofRegulation 8 by such Player(s) or Person(s) shall be deemed to be abreach of Regulation 8 by the Union concerned. "

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

"Regulation 8 is a strict liability offence and shall be construed inaccordance with the principles of strict liability under English law. It is not,therefore, necessary that fault or intent on the part of a Union be shown inorder for a breach of Regulation 8 to be established. Nor is lack of fault orintent on the part of a Union a defence to a breach of Regulation 8. Forthe avoidance of any doubt (and without limiting a Union’s otherobligations and responsibilities for the conduct, acts or omissions of itsmembers and Persons under its jurisdiction pursuant to any otherRegulation) Unions are responsible and accountable for the conduct oftheir Players and all Persons under its jurisdiction in relation tocompliance with the provisions of Regulation 8 and any breach ofRegulation 8 by such Player(s) or Person(s) shall be deemed to be abreach of Regulation 8 by the Union concerned. "

Come on ... this decision is deeply unfair for Romania. We never said that the player was eligible, so of course there is some blame on the Federation and there was going to be a penalty, but where does Regulation 8 mandate the points deduction that was handed down? What sort of justice is it to punish everyone in the same way, irrespective of the fact that one team (Belgium) had 5 ineligible players in some matches while the other (Romania) had only 1. The offense is a strict liability one, but the range of possible penalties were vast and could have included a financial penalty only or a reduced points deduction (which is what one member of the Committee felt was right). The due diligence Romania carried out should have also been taken into account.

No point arguing over it now though, it's done so all that we can do is move on.

RugbyLiebe wrote:Okay, I can understand your points (especially your frustration about this) and I think we should move forward now.What would be the best thing to do in the future from now on, if something like this comes up again?

What about a clear set of rules? Not things like Romania asking for a player if he is eligible but WR arguing they should asked if this player played for Tonga , NSRT or 7evens (which a NORMAL LITERATE person could say is included in word ELIGIBLE isn'it?).

WR argument is not present in any regulation of course in this moment...

RugbyLiebe wrote:Okay, I can understand your points (especially your frustration about this) and I think we should move forward now.

Well, I moved on, I avoided to write after my lengthy post from yesterday but others, including you, seem to be back to it. I am not frustrated, I expected this outcome from the very beginning, it is nothing very surprising and I think I was clear enough that what frustrates me is how some aspects of this case were addressed.

But you come back again to it claiming things that simply aren't true or not completely true. I get that probably is not your intention as we all were kept in the dark by WR and or even lied national unions but ffs me and Bogdan we repeat for months what is in the damn letter. I can't post it but believe me the reasoning is twisted as hell in some aspects and deny crystal clear facts to be answered to.

The decisions aren't legal but political ones and for reasons of PR to cover WR's ass.

To be fair:1. The Germany lost game killed us, even with all the points deduction now will be in repechage game if we didn't had that brain fart game.2. The Vlad story didn't helped either, it is hard to proof something like this, but for sure WR leniency for us dissipated after that scandal.

Of course WR had a unique way of sharing the justice, like a royal head of XV century, but we are to blame in the first place.The rest is just the normal way WR looked at us since we start playing the game: why this primitives Eastern creatures are ruining our private sport?

thatrugbyguy wrote:What happens if it's found out during or after the World Cup that someone from one of the T1 nations isn't eligible? What happens if Australia wins the tournament with someone ineligible who played each game?

They will lose it. End of story. What happens if you break another rule like taking a medication which is on the doping list? You are diqualified. How can this even be a question?

This enlights what is to me an incoherence: why if you field a player illicitly naturalized you have the match lost while if you have a doped player you conserve the result and just the player is disqualified? In both the cases you had a in illicit help: in the second case maybe the team was not aware of the player's doping but it should count anyway the collective responsibility so the fault should be considered of the whole team. I think this disparity of severity between illegal naturalization and doping is unjust, but, ok, I think to have already said it several times

Bogdan_DC wrote:To be fair:1. The Germany lost game killed us, even with all the points deduction now will be in repechage game if we didn't had that brain fart game.2. The Vlad story didn't helped either, it is hard to proof something like this, but for sure WR leniency for us dissipated after that scandal.

Of course WR had a unique way of sharing the justice, like a royal head of XV century, but we are to blame in the first place.The rest is just the normal way WR looked at us since we start playing the game: why this primitives Eastern creatures are ruining our private sport?

Well, they are in for a rude shock in the coming years about Eastern Europe given Georgia’s Under 20’s performance.

We've been 3th in the world and 5th (without losing a game) in the 90s on u20. Didn't change their behavior towards us, even worst, after we won the Trophy in Kenya an promote in Elite, they announce us after 1 month they reduce the number of teams and we must stay in Trophy.

Bogdan_DC wrote:To be fair:1. The Germany lost game killed us, even with all the points deduction now will be in repechage game if we didn't had that brain fart game.2. The Vlad story didn't helped either, it is hard to proof something like this, but for sure WR leniency for us dissipated after that scandal.

Of course WR had a unique way of sharing the justice, like a royal head of XV century, but we are to blame in the first place.The rest is just the normal way WR looked at us since we start playing the game: why this primitives Eastern creatures are ruining our private sport?

Well, they are in for a rude shock in the coming years about Eastern Europe given Georgia’s Under 20’s performance.

The new rugby calendar from 2020 will see Georgia brought into the fold. It promises T2 nations tours of SAANZAR nations, and hosting of T1s. The presser when it was announced clearly stated that it would be merit based. Georgia, should, as far as I can work out have at least 2 T1 tests a year, minimum. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see an announcement that Georgia and Japan will be classified as 'high performance unions' (the classification that replaced T1) within the next two to three years, if Georgia beats Scotland or Wales.

Just to clarify, my earlier post is saying that the creation of a full eligibility database by World Rugby might not solve the problem for administrators around the world in checking eligibility for prospective players. Not everything is easily found on the internet. Completion of a comprehensive database would likely show up more than a dozen cases of players playing 'capture' matches for different countries, while everyone checks that everything is in order and that no IRB or WR precedents have been broken. I doubt that every single one will pass muster.

If players can have passports of two countries during their lifetime, that might complicate things too?

So, I feel WR needs to institute additional rules to prevent something with this degree of negative impact from happening again, while they try to do the right thing. Hopefully some reasoned discussion might help them achieve this.